PARLIAMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF LESOTHO
SENATE
COMMITTEE ON PETITIONS
REPORT ON THE PETITION ON CONCERNS ON THE WORKING CONDITIONS OF WORKERS EMPLOYED AT POLIHALI, MOKHOTLONG
REPORT NO. 03 MARCH 2025
PART 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Petition on the Concerns on working conditions of workers at Polihali Mokhotlong (Annexure 1) was presented in the House by the Honorable President of the Senate on the 1st October 2024.
Subject to Standing Order 73 (4) the Petition was thereafter referred to the Petitions Committee for appropriate action.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
The Committee convened one meeting on Tuesday 21st January 2025 to address the matter where it engaged with representatives of Four Trade Unions being United Textile Workers (UNITE), Construction, Mining, Quarrying and Allied Workers Association (CMQ), Independent Democratic Union of Lesotho (IDUL) and Lesotho Workers Association (LEWA), representatives of the Lesotho Highlands Development Authority and also representative from the Ministry of Labour and Employment.
The report presents the summary of deliberations, findings and recommendations of the Committee.
PART II
3.0 TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE COMMITTEE
The terms of reference of the Petitions Committee are provided under the Standing Order 89 as follows:
(1) There shall be established under this Standing Order a Petitions Committee which shall continue for the term of the Senate.
(2) The Petitions Committee shall, in accordance with these Standing Orders –
(a) consider petitions referred to it by either the Senate or the President, and obtain inputs or evidence thereon;
(b) exercise an oversight function over the executive authority and any organ of state through the receipt and consideration of petitions, including the implementation of legislation and thereby maintain their accountability to Parliament;
(c) perform other functions, tasks and duties as may be resolved by the Senate.
(3) The Petitions Committee may-
(a) call for papers, hear oral evidence, which may , by resolution of the committee, be recorded and transcribed;
(b) consult and liaise with Government Ministries and departments;
(c) ensure the attendance of any person at a meeting of the committee in terms of the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act of 1994; and
(d) establish sub-committees.
(4) Upon conclusion of business laid down for their consideration, the Committee must adopt a report and may make recommendations to the Senate which shall then take final decisions.
4.0 COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE
1. Hon. Senator M. Kanetsi Chairperson
2. Hon. Senator Dr. T. Lebese Member
3. Hon. Senator P. Mathealira Member
4. Hon. Senator M.L.Q Majara Member
5. Hon. Senator S. Motsamai Member
6. Hon. Senator M.S. Maama Member
7. Hon. Senator L.L. Seeiso Member
8. Hon. Senator S.B. Seeiso Member
9. Hon. Senator L. Khoaele Member
10. Hon. Senator T.K.T. Matela Member
11. Hon. Senator N.A. Bereng Member
12. Hon. Senator S.G. Masupha Member
4.1 IN ATTENDANCE
1. Hon. Senator M. Mokhathali
4.2 COMMITTEE SECRETARIAT
1. Ms ‘Maliako Lehloenya Committee Clerk (Recording)
2. Mrs. Maseephephe Matete Chief Legal Officer
PART III
5.0 STAKEHOLDERS PRESENTATIONS
On Tuesday 21st January 2025, the Four Trade Unions mentioned above, the Lesotho Highlands Development Authority and the Ministry of Labour and Employment appeared before the Committee to deliberate on the petition.
5.1 BRIEF BY THE PETITIONERS (TRADE UNIONS)
Representatives from Trade Unions outlined their concerns as follows:
5.1.1 That at the commencement of the Polihali Project, Lesotho Highlands Development Authority Project on their stakeholders meeting indicated that workers would not be paid according to the Lesotho minimum wages standards rather workers would be paid higher wages than those provided in the minimum wages however, workers receive wages as low as M1900 in some companies.
5.1.2 At the beginning of the project the recruitment process would consider Basotho as first priority in every work category. In the event that there is lack of the required skill among Basotho, the recruitment process would extend to South African citizens with a required skill. Unfortunately, the current process attracts non Basotho nationals leaving Basotho with that same skill.
5.1.3 There were discriminatory work benefits between Basotho Nationals and migrant workers, showing that at the Polihali working site, only migrant workers are provided with housing, meals and meals allowances. They consider that to pose discriminatory effect as not all Basotho workers are not from Mokhotlong.
5.1.4 The project had promised that workers would be provided with skills that they could use in the their livelihoods after working with the project sadly, even for retrenched workers there has never been any follow up on the provision of skills for them to earn a living.
5.1.5 There were workers who got injured due to work conditions and are not compensated as per the Workmen’s Compensation Act. They cited the case of Mr. Manka Seetsa who lost his life while on duty but his family has not been compensated thus far.
5.1.6 Mr Seetsa’s postmortem seemed to be tempered with, since it had different hand writings and different colors of ink used.
5.2.0 Proposed interventions
Trade Unions further pleaded with the Committee to intervene on the following matters regarding the project:
5.2.1 Enquire LHDA to produce tenders for all companies and sub-contractors involved in the construction of Polihali Project specifically on clauses that outline payments of workers with reference to section 176 of the Labour Act No.3 of 2024.
5.2.2 Request information from LHDA on specifications pertaining to rest periods, transportation, accommodation and meals.
5.2.3 Enquire the LHDA and Kopano Ke Matla Joint Venture (KKM) on the passing of their employee Mr Manka Seetsa whose family has not yet been compensated.
5.2.4 Compel KKL to improve safety conditions around the tunnel during blasting to avoid loss of lives.
5.3.0 STAKERHOLDERS SUBMISSIONS
5.3.1 LESOTHO HIGHLANDS DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (LHDA)
5.3.1.1 Minimum Wages and compliance with Labour Standards
5.3.1.1.1 The LHDA emphasized that the trade unions before the Committee were not organising within the LHDA as an institution but within the companies carrying out construction activities under the supervision of the LHDA.
5.3.1.1.2 LHDA informed the Committee that there was no evidence of the M5, 000.00 monthly wage which was ever promised to the workers by the project.
5.3.1.1.3 They reiterated that LHDA does not prescribe the wages for a fair competition rather the project monitors that the companies pay according to the laws of Lesotho- Minimum Wage gazette.
5.3.1.1.4 They emphasized to the Committee that employers are allowed to keep certain information confidential unless the parties agree to disclose.
5.3.2.0 The Passing of Mr Manka at the workplace
5.3.2.1 In their reaction to the death of Mr. Manka, the LHDA informed the Committee that there is a legal process to follow where a workman has died as a result of the employer’s dealings.
5.3.2.2 They maintained that they had followed the due process (engaged the Ministry of Labour and Employment and the Lesotho Mounted Police Service). They cooperated in handing the post-mortem to the Police upon allegations that it has been tempered with.
5.3.3.0 Blasting
5.3.3.1 The LHDA reacted that they take full responsibility of the blasting accident. They admitted their fault and carelessness. The project dismissed their employee who was responsible for the blasting which resulted in negatively impacting on the lives of the workers.
5.3.4.0 Contractor Agreements and Transparency
5.3.4.1 LHDA maintained that the Specifications and the Treaty are public documents that the workers can access. The specifications do not change once the contract is concluded only the prices.
5.3.5.0 Disparities in Work Benefits
5.3.5.1 The LHDA informed the Committee that there were/ may be reasons which led to workers being paid below the minimum wage in one company, one of them being absenteeism by some workers.
5.3.5.2 LHDA advised the workers to exhaust all the internal remedies in the event there is a complaint. They brought to the attention of the Committee that the project has employed a fair number of skilled and unskilled workers and such employment should be protected at all times.
5.3.5.3 LHDA also showed that accommodation and meal provisions were based on operational requirements that is worker location. All workers are provided with housing and meals, or allowances for such if not based in the worker camp.
5.3.5.4 LHDA emphasized that the differences between the construction companies and the workers’ unions would soon be realized as soon as they join a bargaining council.
5.3.5.5 LHDA also specified that it has implemented various skills development programs aimed at enhancing workers’ long-term employability. An example of such is the Skills Development Program. The program focuses on training those without skills and ensures that upon completion they receive accreditation and can pursue opportunities within the project and beyond.
6.0 MINISTRY LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
6.1 The Ministry shed some light on the process of claiming under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1977 where they emphasized that the employer can only pay when the death of a workman has is a direct link to the dealings of an employer.
6.2 The Ministry advised the workers to contest the post-mortem through the courts of law.
6.3 The Ministry further informed the Committee that the workers play a role in the minimum wage gazette and all other labour laws.
PART IV
7.0 OBSEVATIONS
7.1 It would be best practice for the parties to explore internal remedies, discuss and find solutions where there are some misunderstandings.
7.2 A bargaining forum (the first after the enactment of the Labour Act, No.3 of 2024) has been established to facilitate structured dialogue between unions and contractors on matters of mutual and material interest, including workers’ wages, health safety and general working conditions. LHDA should see to it that safety of workers becomes a priority to avoid any further negative impacts on lives.
7.3 Although loss of a life took placeat the workplace, the postmortem report indicated that the said loss was a result of an ‘ingestion of Organophosphate, a chemical that is usually found as a component in Agricultural herbicides and insecticides.’
8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 Trade unions should consider seeking a second opinion on the postmortem report or challenge its authenticity in the courts of law to ease their concern.
8.2 Trade unions should engage with the employers to bargain for better working conditions and higher wages.
8.3 Trade Unions should recognize the legal and procedural mechanisms available for addressing disputes and utilize such channels.
9.0 CONCLUSION
Subject to Standing Order 52 (3) the Committee on Petitions wishes to submit the report for the adoption by House.